The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-25
The Senate Declares in Favor of Mr..
Edmunds's Policy of Retaliation.
Wide Division of Opinion Among the States
men, Some Senators Maintaining that the
Measure Means War with Great Britain.
Others Insist that Retaliation Is the
Only Road to Peaceable Solution.
Messrs. Frye and Ingalls, Denounce the Brit
ish Lion in Unusually Severe Language
Other Items of Washington News.


RETALIATORY LEGISLATION.
The Senate Passes the Bill Empowering the
President to Retort in Kind.
WASHINGTON, JAN AT los the Senate, on
motion Of Mr.. Edmunds proceeded to consider
alton of the Senate bill to authorize the Presi-
dent of the United States to protect and defend
the rights of American fishing vessels. American
fishermen, American trading and other vessels,
in certain cases.
Mr.. Hoar suggested the provision of the
words, ''or uniustly vexed or harassed therein
by the authorities thereof" He thought the bin
would be much safer if it contained that general
phraseology.
Mr.. Ingalls, thought that these fisheries diff
culties mus. be ultimately settled either by
gotiations by war. This measure was dis
tinctly one of retaliation. It was an eye for an
eye, tooth for tooth, fish for fish, an in-
suit for an insult, wrong for a wrong. He
thought it important, before the Senate was
called upon to vote, tina: the committee on for
eign relations should advise the Senate whether
this measure was intended to he pacific or hos
tile; whether it was in effect, an invitation TO
negotiate or practically declaration Of war.
There was no nse in Disgusting the proposition.
There was feeling of irritation. the real party
in interest being Great Britain and not Canada,
which was at any moment, If the present atti-
tude was continued, liable to lead to discomfort
which might ripen into exasperation, and this
into open hostility. 1t was, therefore. of very
great Importance that. at the threshold, at the
outsef in tha veafihu1n tha Cnnafa ShonJd mn.
derstand whether the bill was intended
a pacific or as a hostile measure. He
quoted some sentences from the report of the
committee on foreign relations. and remarked
that countries had been inundated with blood on
less provocation. The conduct of the Dominion
and of Great Britain. according to this report,
was sufficient to justify and warrant a declara-
tion of war the part of the United States. II
was a violation not only of treaty rights guar
anteed by repeated conventions, but it showed
purpose on the part of the government of CAM
ada and OF her Majesty's government to harass
and annoy, and destroy American fishing inter-
ests simply for the purpose either of private
gain or of some public advantage. It appeared
to him that In view of those grave allegations,
and the irritation and discomfort known to exist
between the two countries, the reporting of a
measure which authorized the President to enter
simply on process of retaliation was hardly
consistent with the gravity of the situation. It
was dangerous course to authorize the Presi-
dent to continue in the same line of conduct and
policy with the inevitable result either of finally
negotiating for the purpose of settling these
questions, or else of going to war in defense
of the rights under the treaty of 1913
Mr. Frye proceeded to partcularze many Of
the OutrageS to which American fishing vessels
had been subjected in Canadian waters. Among
them was the case of an American vessel which
had brought into Canadian port seventeen
shpwrecked Canadian sailors and had been re-
fused the right to purchase barrel Of flour to
keep her crew from starvation. He declared
that the annals of hIstory-even of the Fiji
islands-might be searched without finding
case so brutal and so inhumane. He also quoted
the of the Marion Grimes, an American
schooner whose flag was hauled down by Captain
Quigley, of the Canadian cutter Terror. All
these cases. he said, had been brought to the at
tention of the British government; that govern
ment knew the utter inhumanity of these cases,
and knew that outrages had been committed in
violation of law as we'll as of good neighbor-
hood.
Mr. Vest inquired of Mr.. Frye whether in the
case of the hauling down of the American flag,
the government of Great Britain indorsed that
action OF Captain Quieley, and whether on the
contrary. that government had not expressly dis
avowed the act and apologized for it. He read
from the report a note from the English Foreign
Office to the Canadian government on the sub
ject.
Mr.. Edmunds suggested that Captain Quigley
was still in the government service.
Mr.. Frye quoted from recent statute passed
by the Dominion government in still further
hostility to American fishermen. and said that
that legislation had been approved by the British
government. The hope therefore, that Great
Britain would do what was fair and just, was de-
stroyed, and it might have been known that that
would have been the result There was not q
line, he said, in the history of Great Britain for
the last three hundred years that gave q single
reason to believe that in the pursuit of gain she
would permit the right of another to
IN ia wa Cf hor
one of the cases he had referred to was
| in violation of the spirit, and four ont
| of five of them were in violation of the letter.
| Of the treaty of 1918. Every one OF them
| was in violation of the rules of good neghbor-
| hood, Of the civilization of the day and of the
understanding of all civilized nations to the
| rights of foreign ships IN their ports. But the
American people knew that they were sixty
millions; they knew that they were the richest
| nation of the earth; they knew their power and
| they would not humilate themselves and do vio
lence to their conscious pride by resoring to lit
| tie, miserable tricks and outrages by way OF re-
| taliation. What the committee on foreign rela-
| tions sought was that the President of the
! United States should be empowered to close
American ports against any fishermen, or all
| fishermen, against any merchant vessel or all
merchant vessels. The Queen of Great Britain
| had to day the power to close her ports against
any of the products of the whole world. if she
saw fit He saw no objection to intrusting that
| power to the President. He believed that the
| President would only have to take advantage OF
| this bill and issue his proclamation that
| no fish, fresh or SALT or canned
| or smoked, the product of Canadian fisheries,
shall be landed in any port Of the United States
and not another outrage by this British colony
| would be heard of. But, if these outrages
! to continue, and were 10 result in reciprocity
| treaty-as had been the case before-that treaty
/ would again be abrogated and tho outrages
| would be- again renewed. The bill on the same
subject in the House Of Representatives went
! further than this bill 1t gave the President
! authority to proclaim absolute non-lntercoursa
| He did not believe that che House committee on
| foreign affairs would lave reported that bill
| without knowing whethcr or not the administra-
/ ton was in sympathy with it, The Senator